Ubisoft announces a delay for Far Cry 3, saying the first-person shooter sequel is now due for PCs and consoles on November 29th in EMEA territories and on December 4th in the U.S. "We're taking more time to create the best possible gameplay experience," said Dan Hay, producer at Ubisoft. "Far Cry 3 is a huge offering and we want every element of this insane, action-packed adventure to be of the highest possible quality for the players." Prior to this setback, the game was expected in September.

So you dual-boot your system just to run a shit and out of dating operating system most of the time?

There are perfectly valid reasons to run XP. For one, it still has better compatibility with older games, programs and hardware. It also consumes less memory, which is useful if you don't have 4 gigs of RAM.

If you have a high-end system with lots of memory and you only play new games, Windows 7 is fine. But if you don't have that much memory, you have older hardware or you like to play a lot of older games, XP is the better option.

It's also important to note that the majority of games still only support DX9. Some games that have DX10/11 support aren't well-optimized, resulting in subpar performance (Metro 2033 and Arkham City come to mind) unless you play in DX9 mode. As such, even if you only use XP and miss out on DX10/11 features, you aren't really missing out on much.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 20:24:So you were one of the nubs using a keyboard in QWTF crying "CHEATERS!!" while I was mouse hunting you over and over...And you sound like a complete moron when you disregard XP. Newsflash genius - it's STILL the best system for gaming on. 11 processes, 140m pf usage. I'll bet your Vista/7 system has a minimum of 30 processes running on bootup, most of which you don't even know what they do, all of which you had no hand in optimizing.

Grow up butthurt boy, don't get all defensive about your lack of dissecting facts - it only makes you look more stupid.

You're arguing with a guy who bolds system specs in his signature, it's a waste of time. If you want to run XP then you don't need to justify it to someone else, it's a perfectly valid and officially supported choice even to this day. It might not be a year from now but it certainly was when Far Cry 2 was released.

Google is your friend, use it. Try "far cry 2 mouse problems" and shut the hell up about 'my lies'.

Far Cry 2 had some known mouse issues using the DirectX 10 renderer but most were only apparent in the menu system. This was likely a combination of that and some driver problems, I remember reading the same things about laggy and floaty cursor issues on the forums. If you had stuck with DirectX9 and XP you probably would have been fine, no need to dual boot.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 20:24:Google is your friend, use it. Try "far cry 2 mouse problems" and shut the hell up about 'my lies'.

And type in "counter-strike mouse problems" and you get over over 600% more search results on Google. There will always be some issues with particular configurations but it wasn't a universal problem with the port, which was what you were suggesting. According to the Google results most of the issues were caused by computers with poor specs, so you can't blame the developer if your computer wasn't up to snuff.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 22:12:Sure Dev you're right, but DX10/11 is a bling bust, large system ram (as opposed to GPU memory) is unneeded for games

There have been countless reviews comparing the performance of XP to both Vista and Win7 which demonstrated that XP was actually slower in games, despite using less resources. DX10/11 both feature performance optimisations that simply aren't possible in DX9.

In other words... I use Win7, but only "unless its required" (for the very uncomprehending minds like 'theyarecomingforyou' who only reads four words in every sentence.

So you dual-boot your system just to run a shit and out of dating operating system most of the time? It's bizarre how some people will go out of their way to prove a point... that was until I read "I choose not to use them because I think liberals are annoying", at which point I realised you're either just trolling or a moron - either way I have no interest discussing this further with you.

Dev wrote on Jun 26, 2012, 04:53:For me, the choice is mostly based on price. "Green" drives happen to be often cheaper, and if I just need a big bulk drive to store stuff, that fits the bill. If I want a fast drive, thats what my SSD is for.

Actually, I haven't found green drives to be any cheaper. Seagate 3TB drives are £115 and it's £152 for a Hitachi green drive (WD 3TB drives aren't even available any more); at 2TB it's £85 for a Seagate 7200RPM and £90 for a WD green drive. In fact I read recently that green drives are actually more expensive to manufacture which is why one of the biggest manufacturers (Seagate or WD, I can't remember) is dropping them. I always stick to 7200RPM because performance is important to me.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 22:12:Sure Dev you're right, but DX10/11 is a bling bust, large system ram (as opposed to GPU memory) is unneeded for games, and while green drives are fine I choose not to use them because I think liberals are annoying and since I pay for my electricity instead of demanding everyone else pay for it - I like to use as much energy as possible!

For me, the choice is mostly based on price. "Green" drives happen to be often cheaper, and if I just need a big bulk drive to store stuff, that fits the bill. If I want a fast drive, thats what my SSD is for.

As for power, I think we need more Nuclear plants. Ironically enough, they put less radioactive waste into the atmosphere than coal plants. Or maybe natural gas, since we've had a boom of that recently.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 19:15:Check this out. Rather than noisy cooler fans they actually spin the entire heatsink at 2000RPM, which they reckon is about 30 times more efficient than current cooling systems. The added bonus is that you don't get any dust build-up.

That was pretty cool. Wish they had spent some time explaining how the heat transfer actually works. That was the first thing that occurred to me when I saw it, but they just kinda glossed over that part, right after saying it was the most difficult thing to figure out.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 16:34:I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required. DirectX had nothing to do with it's horrid controls.

If a company can't implement solid controls that veteren PC users expect - it's in the garbage bin no matter what else the game features.

A good majority of people these days have no idea what PC controls are supposed to feel like - they are just as happy to put on an xbox controller and call it amazing. These same people would load up a game of quakelive and quit within a few minutes convinced everyone was hacking or just annoyed at how terrible they are then blame the game.

I was gaming before mice were even used for FPS games, so let's cut the bullshit "people these days have no idea" nonsense. There was nothing wrong with the control system for FC2. As for the "I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required" statement that just means you don't play games as they're supposed to be played - heck, you can't even run games like BF3 on XP. Anybody that still uses XP for gaming has zero credibility. Still, I'd expect nothing less from someone with a post history as questionable as yours.

FC2 had plenty of gameplay issues - most of which have already been mentioned - but the PC version was excellent. It was well optimised, had superb graphics and DX10 features exclusive to PC, it had excellent controls, it had incredibly short load times and aside from the overly elaborate menu system (which was a design decision not an issue) couldn't be faulted. Initially it didn't allow you to change the FOV but that was patched in and was changeable manually beforehand. You can complain all you want about the game but don't spread bullshit lies about control issues.

So you were one of the nubs using a keyboard in QWTF crying "CHEATERS!!" while I was mouse hunting you over and over...

Google is your friend, use it. Try "far cry 2 mouse problems" and shut the hell up about 'my lies'.

And you sound like a complete moron when you disregard XP. Newsflash genius - it's STILL the best system for gaming on. 11 processes, 140m pf usage. I'll bet your Vista/7 system has a minimum of 30 processes running on bootup, most of which you don't even know what they do, all of which you had no hand in optimizing.

Grow up butthurt boy, don't get all defensive about your lack of dissecting facts - it only makes you look more stupid.

Play with XP all you want, it's going away whether you like it or not. I like Win 7 with all the RAM I can stuff in it because I can (and almost always do) have several large memory consuming apps running in the background while I take a break to do some gaming. So I can play Skyrim without a hitch and then go right back to what I was doing before. Try that with your puny XP

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Sure Dev you're right, but DX10/11 is a bling bust, large system ram (as opposed to GPU memory) is unneeded for games, and while green drives are fine I choose not to use them because I think liberals are annoying and since I pay for my electricity instead of demanding everyone else pay for it - I like to use as much energy as possible!

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 20:24:And you sound like a complete moron when you disregard XP. Newsflash genius - it's STILL the best system for gaming on. 11 processes, 140m pf usage. I'll bet your Vista/7 system has a minimum of 30 processes running on bootup, most of which you don't even know what they do, all of which you had no hand in optimizing.

Grow up butthurt boy, don't get all defensive about your lack of dissecting facts - it only makes you look more stupid.

Here's some facts. Yes you can still eek out a few percentage points more in a few areas in XP with gaming. But nowadays, CPU's are mostly overpowered for even gaming (majority of games are GPU bound, not CPU) and RAM is so cheap, 8gb is less than $40, so the extra memory and CPU used by vista/7 is of no consequence in most modern systems. Simply get a nice powerful GPU and it will make far more of a difference than XP vs vista/7. Also, you need vista/7 to use dx 10/11. When next gen consoles finally arrive, even if they are obsolete at start, they will finally push a larger drive into dx 10/11, whereas right now, there are STILL recent ports that use dx 9 only.

While I'm at it, I'll knock a couple other "myths" out, or at least explain why they are meaningless.

Like using a 1366 pin i7 system for the triple memory channels vs double memory channel. At BEST it added like 2 percentage points to overall performance, something which is unnoticeable and (and in that case added a large amount of cost to the overall system, cost which would have been better spent getting a faster video card.)

Or using green hard drives. Modern green harddrives vastly outpace things like older generation velociraptors, simply because of vastly increased platter density. Lots of people like to go ZOMG GREEN DRIVES SUX0R when really, modern latest gen ones are quite fast, and not terribly far off of non-green drives.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 16:34:I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required. DirectX had nothing to do with it's horrid controls.

If a company can't implement solid controls that veteren PC users expect - it's in the garbage bin no matter what else the game features.

A good majority of people these days have no idea what PC controls are supposed to feel like - they are just as happy to put on an xbox controller and call it amazing. These same people would load up a game of quakelive and quit within a few minutes convinced everyone was hacking or just annoyed at how terrible they are then blame the game.

I was gaming before mice were even used for FPS games, so let's cut the bullshit "people these days have no idea" nonsense. There was nothing wrong with the control system for FC2. As for the "I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required" statement that just means you don't play games as they're supposed to be played - heck, you can't even run games like BF3 on XP. Anybody that still uses XP for gaming has zero credibility. Still, I'd expect nothing less from someone with a post history as questionable as yours.

FC2 had plenty of gameplay issues - most of which have already been mentioned - but the PC version was excellent. It was well optimised, had superb graphics and DX10 features exclusive to PC, it had excellent controls, it had incredibly short load times and aside from the overly elaborate menu system (which was a design decision not an issue) couldn't be faulted. Initially it didn't allow you to change the FOV but that was patched in and was changeable manually beforehand. You can complain all you want about the game but don't spread bullshit lies about control issues.

So you were one of the nubs using a keyboard in QWTF crying "CHEATERS!!" while I was mouse hunting you over and over...

Google is your friend, use it. Try "far cry 2 mouse problems" and shut the hell up about 'my lies'.

And you sound like a complete moron when you disregard XP. Newsflash genius - it's STILL the best system for gaming on. 11 processes, 140m pf usage. I'll bet your Vista/7 system has a minimum of 30 processes running on bootup, most of which you don't even know what they do, all of which you had no hand in optimizing.

Grow up butthurt boy, don't get all defensive about your lack of dissecting facts - it only makes you look more stupid.

Dev wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 19:25:I wonder if its being delayed so they can make it F2P, since crytek announced all future games of theirs were going to be F2P.

I heard it was because they were concerned the jungle theme would be too reminiscent of the original game so they're changing the setting to the Arctic, where you'll fight polar bears and robot penguins.

Check this out. Rather than noisy cooler fans they actually spin the entire heatsink at 2000RPM, which they reckon is about 30 times more efficient than current cooling systems. The added bonus is that you don't get any dust build-up.

Axis wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 16:34:I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required. DirectX had nothing to do with it's horrid controls.

If a company can't implement solid controls that veteren PC users expect - it's in the garbage bin no matter what else the game features.

A good majority of people these days have no idea what PC controls are supposed to feel like - they are just as happy to put on an xbox controller and call it amazing. These same people would load up a game of quakelive and quit within a few minutes convinced everyone was hacking or just annoyed at how terrible they are then blame the game.

I was gaming before mice were even used for FPS games, so let's cut the bullshit "people these days have no idea" nonsense. There was nothing wrong with the control system for FC2. As for the "I don't use Win Vista/7 unless it's required" statement that just means you don't play games as they're supposed to be played - heck, you can't even run games like BF3 on XP. Anybody that still uses XP for gaming has zero credibility. Still, I'd expect nothing less from someone with a post history as questionable as yours.

FC2 had plenty of gameplay issues - most of which have already been mentioned - but the PC version was excellent. It was well optimised, had superb graphics and DX10 features exclusive to PC, it had excellent controls, it had incredibly short load times and aside from the overly elaborate menu system (which was a design decision not an issue) couldn't be faulted. Initially it didn't allow you to change the FOV but that was patched in and was changeable manually beforehand. You can complain all you want about the game but don't spread bullshit lies about control issues.

ItBurn wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 16:42:I've personally never had any problem with the game. Sure it had some flaws, but come on. It was a fully open world with non-linear gameplay, exploration, you could play the way you wanted and it had a ton of crazy and original features like the insane fire and foliage destruction effects.I guess you guys would rather have call of duty 58, the wonderful 100% scripted shooting gallery. I'm sure it has no bugs.

Yeah, all that cool stuff is nice, but when the game has so many annoying features that it's just not fun to play, it's not really a good game.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)